132
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 2 months ago

Exactly. Based on this, and based on OP's other responses, OP is basically saying "I want poor people to suffer so rich people can make more money" (off of new car sales with more efficient engines, or electric).

So my question for them is: is the income divide not great enough? If not, when will it be?

[-] pet1t@piefed.social 18 points 2 months ago

That's mainly a problem for car-brained people. There are other modes of transportation, you know.

[-] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 21 points 2 months ago

No, there aren't.

Plenty of places have no other option.

[-] pet1t@piefed.social 12 points 2 months ago
[-] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 15 points 2 months ago

People like you remind me of evangelical Christians.

You are all perfectly content to have other people suffer in hopes that a wonderful future will emerge.

If you want to suffer, go right ahead. Don't expect other people to be miserable so you can feel superior.

[-] pet1t@piefed.social 10 points 2 months ago

yeah, let's keep things just the way they are and stop hoping that societal changes can be a motor for improvement

all I'm saying is there aren't alternatives YET, but situations like this could create a positive change in mindset and eventually infrastructure as well. fine by me if you want to be a glass-half-empty kind of person

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Yea, because alternate options just pop up over night.

[-] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 9 points 2 months ago

There are many regions where alternative forms of transport aren't very viable. Nearly non-existent public transit and bike infrastructure because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind. Zoning requirements that mean everything is spread out and impossible to walk between. Possibly even combined with terrible weather for much of the year.

Places where making changes to fix those issues, increase public options, etc. are met with stiff political backlash, not necessarily from the car people, but just simple conservatives or regressives that don't think any money should be spent on that infrastructure, often simply because it's not something they'd use.

[-] pet1t@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago

but, and I realise this might be a bit utopian, the more people (have to) use alternative modes of transportation, the more the need for better infrastructure will grow. domino effect and all that

[-] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago

Oh definitely, but making those changes requires funding them. And that's virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

And that’s virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.

Which is why the pain has to come first and therefore high oil prices are good.

[-] pet1t@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago

sometimes I'm really glad that I'm European

[-] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago

Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars. Places that can't fit car traffic, etc. so alternatives are either a requirement or already a higher priority than destroying existing infrastructure to make it fit.

[-] pet1t@piefed.social 3 points 2 months ago

plus, certain places - like the city where I live, for example - opt for infrastructure and traffic rules that favour cyclists and pedestrians. that also helps

[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars.

First of all, American cities also existed before cars.

Second, many European cities were rebuilt from rubble after WWII to accommodate cars.

That factor is not nearly the excuse you think it is.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Europe was demolished during the world wars. Both the US and Europe mostly consist of post-WW2 buildings. Europe just chose to build more sensibly.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

They really don't require a lot of money. In an emergency, you can create a bike lane with nothing but a few traffic cones. Then later you can spend the money and put in a permanent install.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Building a city wrong doesn't mean "alternative forms of transport aren't very viable;" it means the city was built wrong and that must be corrected.

And make no mistake, that is very viable: the Netherlands already did it (it was not always like that: it was rebuilt for cars after WWII and then rebuilt again starting in the 1970s when they realized they'd fucked up). Paris is doing it right now. It is not actually hard, and it is not actually expensive -- at least not compared to the long-term societal costs of continuing car-dependency.

because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind.

This is a straight-up lie, BTW. All the cities -- including "newer" sunbelt ones, like LA or Houston or Atlanta -- were in fact built for walking and streetcars first, and then demolished to accommodate cars.

[-] boletus@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

Its true! I strongly believe in public transport. Particularly the transport that is also dependent on oil... Where I live though, if I wanted to get to work without my car it would change my trip time from 45m - 1.5h to about 2h-3h. Each way. I don't feel like spending 6h travelling so it's not really a choice for many of us.

[-] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 6 points 2 months ago

That’s mainly a problem for (poor) car-brained people.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Are car brained people going to be the only ones affected by rising food prices due to an increase in transportation costs? How about those that don't have any other means but to drive to work to make a living because public transportation isn't available and buying an EV isn't an option?

It's not just an issue for car brained people, it's also an issue for narrow minded people, such as yourself.

[-] pet1t@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago

Oh no, rising food prices could be real. But that doesn’t mean other things should be expensive as well. There is always a chance to cut personal costs elsewhere - like transportation, for instance.

What I do believe is that it could be the thing that’s needed to push for better infrastructure and public transportation, but that won’t happen if you just look at it as if you’re only a victim and can’t do anything about it. If people can get vocal and push their (local) government to look at alternatives, you could achieve a lot. If you just want to sulk in a corner acting like “oh it’s bad and there’s nothing that can be done”, then you’re the narrow minded one. Look at the opportunity it brings and that could be solved in the medium/long term. Okay, you have a short term problem, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be solved. You said in another comment “because alternate options just pop up over night”. No, they don’t, but if you expect every problem to be fixed over night, you’re gonna have a very difficult life.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

It's a problem right now and getting worse. Long term goals for change are good, but in the best circumstances that takes years of planning and implementation.

People can cut personal costs, but that shouldn't have to be done. That's simply a work around for people to survive, but we're here to live. I could turn my heat down to 50° in the house, but I shouldn't have to live in discomfort to make ends meet. I could eat just rice and beans but I should be able to afford a balanced diet. Some of us can't just cut costs on transportation because there aren't any other options. Saying to just costs is a lot like victim blaming.

[-] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago

Yeah, in a major metropolitan area.

Trains are cool! There's like two train tracks that go through town and they only carry freight. There are no passenger trains anywhere around here.

We also have buses. They don't come within 5 miles of me. Also a non-starter.

I guess it's cool to hate cars if you live with your parents, but for those of us with bills to pay, we gotta go get that bread. But uh, have fun with your online gaming or whatever. It's just not sustainable for most of us.

[-] pet1t@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago

I graduated in '21, moved in with my gf at the same time, started working (to afford rent and surviving, you know) and bought a house last year. But go off I guess. I have bills to pay and hate cars as the sole method of transportation at the same time, it's amazing! Even have my driver's license since I was 18 (9 years already, how time flies). Crazy concept.

I'll go have fun with reading a good book now. Cheerio!

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You don't have good public transit because you and your neighbors have chosen not to vote for it. Maybe that will change when gas is $7 a gallon.

[-] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

The old bait-n-switch with a side of victim blaming. Gotta love it when they pull the rug out from under you and look down at ya like you were never gonna get ahead.

How's the view from that ivory tower?

[-] timmy_dean_sausage@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Oil products are used in a lot more things than just cars. But, you're right. I'll just ride a bike next time I have to travel 70 miles for one of my regular gigs.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

You don’t think poor people suffer from climate change? Or are you a science denier?

[-] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago
[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Yes it is comically ignorant to pretend more people won’t suffer worse from climate change than from high fuel prices.

[-] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Comically ignorant. Lol the edits

[-] Kanda@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago

Unless you drive a much bigger car than you need to (i.e. that guy who drives a ford 350 to the office), there's probably not much to save on engine efficiency. Maybe a liter/100km

this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2026
132 points (100.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

9063 readers
26 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS